Politics. Sex. Science. Art. You know, the good stuff.

About Stephanie Zvan

Stephanie Zvan is the producer of The Humanist Hour podcast. She's also one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

Does the G-Spot Exist?

Each time studies on the g-spot have been published the media has reacted as though
– these are groundbreaking studies
– the do they/don’t they have g-spots issue is the most pressing topic in sex research
– these studies require no critical attention

And in all these cases journalists – including health and science correspondents – have responded to these studies in one simple way. To frame their stories with the question ‘does the g-spot exist?’

[…]

You can expect the media to do four things with this.
1. They will trumpet that YES, THE G-SPOT DOES EXIST! even though previously they said it didn’t (and it did and it didn’t etc etc).
2. They will use this to bring up the same old debate – does the g-spot exist? But they will not critically engage with the research itself.
3. They will fail to notice that a fortnight ago they were having exactly the same discussion.
4. They will use this as another opportunity to report the story using the now well-established tactic of let’s-set-up-a-debate-with-the-ladies-about-their-orgasms.

How should we be looking at and talking about these studies? Dr Petra has some excellent suggestions on that as well, starting with the most skeptical question of “Who benefits from research like this?” The answer to that may surprise you, even if you’ve read the study. I would suggest reading the whole thing.

And to those of you who would comment with an opinion on the question in the title, it was not an invitation to a debate. I don’t actually care how you find sexual pleasure and satisfaction, as long as everyone involved gives meaningful consent.

Share this:

About the author

Stephanie Zvan is the producer of The Humanist Hour podcast. She's also one of the hosts for the Minnesota Atheists' radio show and podcast, Atheists Talk. She speaks on science and skepticism in a number of venues, including science fiction and fantasy conventions.
Stephanie has been called a science blogger and a sex blogger, but if it means she has to choose just one thing to be or blog about, she's decided she's never going to grow up. In addition to science and sex and the science of sex, you'll find quite a bit of politics here, some economics, a regular short fiction feature, and the occasional bit of concentrated weird.
Oh, and arguments. She sometimes indulges in those as well. But I'm sure everything will be just fine. Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Does the G-Spot Exist?”

I saw a documentary on TV a week or so ago where researchers claimed that clitoral tissue extended well beyond the little spot above the vulva and extended down and around the vagina, essentially encircling it.

So, the G spot, they claim, is not a “spot” at all, but more like areas where women are accessing deep clitoral stimulation. More like a ringed zone than a spot. And somewhat individualized in terms of where any particular woman might feel the most pleasure.

I found that research fascinating.

As to the linked article, The Journal of Sexual Medicine was founded and is edited by Irwin Goldstein, who is somewhat of a gadfly in sexual medicine circles. My guess is that he founded the journal because some of his more-loony sexual research couldn’t get past peer review in the more-established journals (including the International Journal of Impotence Research, and the International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies).

In short, not all journals are created alike. J Sex Med is not what I would call an A-list journal, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least that it would be exploited like the article claims.

Disclaimer: I’m a medical writer by profession who worked for several years (not currently) in the sexual medicine arena.

Glad to see the “P-spot” comparison made in there. There’s so much time, money and energy spent telling women they do/don’t have a normal/abnormal sexual response to their clitoris or G-spot while men are told that they’re normal because they have a penis.

My ex had a book that was written by a man who insisted that not only does every woman have a g-spot, but that they can ejaculate when it’s stimulated the right way. His research was based on the women he’s slept with. The number was in the twenties I believe. He managed to convince each of the women who weren’t able to ejaculate, to let him do what he wanted to get them to. At least according to him.

My ex guilt tripped me for the entire time we were together over this book, claiming I just didn’t trust him enough to make this happen.

Bad science around sex reporting needs to go away and stop being focused around just men as the only type of person out there who has normal sex.

What’s astonishing to me is that there’s so much attention on the “G-Spot” that people have forgotten how it was invented/discovered/trumpeted in the first place, as a sort of female equivalent of the prostate gland. Now the prostate gland has a new name, the P-spot.

I wonder if it would be in bad taste to write a parody scientific paper about the controversy surrounding the mythical and legendary P-spot and the importance of men having P-spot orgasms.

Comments are closed.

The Orbit is a diverse collective of atheist and nonreligious bloggers committed to social justice, within and outside the secular community. For more information, please see our About Us page.

All content is copyright the authors except where otherwise noted. Contact the authors individually for further information.